Cultivating the Shrinking City
There has been a ton of press recently on the proposals for demolition and transformation of Detroit vacant lands for large-scale urban agriculture. Articles by Fast Company, The New Republic, Associated Press, The Detroit Free Press and countless other blogs have discussed ideas related to consolidation of urban density and re-purposing this Terrain Vague not just for gardens, but for true large scale urban farming. As part of the team that visited Detroit as part of the AIA Sustainable Design Assessment Team in 2008, I witnessed first-hand some of the conditions that are being discussed – and along with the team offered many of the seeds of change that are beginning to emerge and flourish.
The product of this work is ‘Leaner, Greener, Detroit | A Report by the American Institute of Architects Sustainable Design Assessment Team; authored by Alan Mallach, Subrata Basu, Stephen Gazillo, Jason King, Teresa Lynch, Edwin Marty & Colin Meehan and edited by our AIA handlers Marcia Garcia & Erin Simmons, (October 2008) [link to the full report here]
The problem at the time was pretty clear – and folks were beginning to acknowledge the fact that Detroit would never again be a city of two- million inhabitants, and that this would have implications on any approach to combating the phenomenon of shrinking. From the executive summary on Sustainable Urban Form:
“Detroit has far more land than it needs to accommodate its people. Detroit must begin to look at ways to reconfigure its land uses to create smaller, better functioning, more sustainable and interconnected livable communities. A new compact development pattern based on an urban core and a network of urban villages linked by roads and transitways will not only allow for more efficient and cost effective delivery of public services, but will encourage public transportation, provide opportunities for diverse, mixed income communities, and create long term environmental benefit by reducing vehicle use and fostering transit and land use efficiency.”
The most telling diagram of the size of the problem was the brainchild of Dan Pitera, a local architect and professor of architecture at University of Detroit Mercy. His diagram below shows an indication of the immensity of the problem by comparing the density and size of Detroit with some other populations and sizes of significant US Cities. I was flummoxed by this map as it really struck a chord in the difficulties inherent in providing services to this large area with a relatively dispersed population. [As a side note, I was also similarly amazed when I did a similar study of Portland and found that we are much more similar to Detroit in size and density - which has continued to shock local folks that see our fair city as the model for contained and dense urban growth]
The result was a conceptual diagram that took existing pockets of relative density and aimed to consolidate urban vitality where it was currently strongest. While purposely generic (and for full disclosure, done with the rudimentary stone tools of Microsoft Powerpoint on the fly), this proposal was based on an analysis using local information on specific ‘centers’ that currently existed. From the report: “The recommended urban form consists of an urban core, which includes downtown Detroit and contiguous areas such as Mexicantown, Midtown and New Center, linked to a network of urban villages through public transit, greenways, blueways and bikeways, with future opportunity areas created through land banking distributed around the urban villages.”
diagram by Jason king
As I wrote on Landscape+Urbanism, the hierarchy of urban form includes these urban villages, along with connected layers of greenway corridors and ample ‘opportunity areas’. “From a more physical point of view, the fact that the population of this ‘new Detroit’ could fit within 50 square miles – leaving 80-90 square miles of ‘opportunity area’ that could consist of greenways, parkways, and urban agriculture – along with urban reserves. This leaves areas of density – core and urban villages – intertwined with the new fabric of community that is regenerative.”
While it was implicit in the reference to opportunity that these could be malleable (i.e. support green space, agriculture, or new development – if necessary), it was still met with some vocal skepticism. It is amazing to see the turn-around from the relative shock-and-awe when we presented these ideas in Detroit in 2008. It’s a radical solution that involves both winners and losers (when thought of in terms of specific property) and that rankled (and maybe intrigued) more than a few people. As mentioned in the report, these seeds were essential to the proposals for opportunity areas:
“Detroit is particularly well suited to become a pioneer in commercial urban agriculture. The city already has hundreds of community gardens, and a growing number of small commercial agricultural operations. The operators of these farms and gardens have organized networks to support and promote their activities. The Eastern Market and the surrounding complimentary businesses give Detroit a food-related infrastructure well beyond that which exists in most cities. The benefits of urban agriculture can be realized by an initiative designed to lead to large-scale agricultural production in Detroit, using a significant share of the city’s vacant land over the next five to ten years. 10,000 acres of land used for urban agriculture – less than half of the city’s vacant land – could support hundreds of farms and generate thousands of jobs, while dramatically improving the health of Detroit’s residents. Within five years, Detroit should be able to build an urban agriculture system that would substantially exceed any other system in the United States.”
The beauty of this type of intervention is that it isn’t a permanent solution but offers a measure of flexibility moving into the future. Rather than leave lands within the city fallow until the best use is obtained, this proposal maximizes the overall use for as long as it is viable economically, and also includes ideas of job creation, reduction of blight, increased safety, and access to local food. While maintaining this productivity, it is also rather easy to transform these zones into other uses, were population to grow and require development. Call it productive land banking.
While none of the ideas we presented were new, they were based on solid precedents and made a lot of sense as a response to the context we were facing. Although many now are staking claim to the ‘brilliant idea’ of large scale farming and reconfiguration of vacant lands in Detroit, there was already plenty of talk about these ideas from local residents on our visit and folks were planning visions of major changes to come. The difference is that talk has turned to action (and political will, which in Detroit means everything), with proposals such as Hantz Farms to cultivate large scale areas of the city.
Detroit has stuck with me since Angels’ Night 2008, and is a telling counterpoint to many of the issues facing Portland. The regional variation and issues tied to economics and location are indicative of trends in looking at and applying the unique strategic opportunities based on landscape urbanism principles. Read more on the process and thinking in this series of posts from Landscape+Urbanism:
:: The Detroit Dilemma (Nov 8, 2008)
:: The Detroit Dilemma – Ruminations (Dec 26, 2008)
:: Delirious Detroit: Land of UnReal Estate (Mar 27, 2009)
:: Speaking Dequindre (May 16, 2009)
:: Peril of the Forgotten (May 31, 2009)
:: Detroit: Urbanist Opportunity (Jun 13, 2009)
:: The Incredible Shrinking City (June 17, 2009)
:: Growing the Shrinking City (June 25, 2009)
:: Some SDATisfaction (July 5, 2009)
:: Garden City Detroit (July 28, 2009)
:: Detroit Vacancy (August 17, 2009)
